Vikings 2012 Season: Gentlemen, We Are Hosed

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:26 am

Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:whatever way you look at the stadium situation, the Gophers in no way deserved a stadium before the Vikings!

The way I look at it is this: I went to the U and love the Gophers. I never have and never will have any use for the Vikings or their fans. The Vikings provided an avenue for my University to destroy the tradition that every other Big Ten school's students and alumni can share together. It will take another 50 years to make up the time we've lost. The lack of loyalty this encouraged also makes it so a school with 50,000 students that is surrounded by 2 million people can't fill up a very nice, but small, replacement stadium because we have "too many sports options," with the Vikings being the primary distraction. They can't move soon enough.

So you can see why I don't share your opinion on the Vikings stadium.

Simply ridiculous. The Vikings ruined gopher football??? I have heard it all now.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:29 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:The U wanted nothing to do with Lightrail. Nice try though.

The point was it was on the table at the state before TCF Bank and the Bank got done first ...

by **Jupiter** » Thu 4/19/12 12:30 am

The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

by **dxmnkd316** » Thu 4/19/12 12:30 am

The Gophers were one of the best teams in the nation and their last championship came in 1960. The VIkings moved in 1961. Coincidence? I think not.

Damnit Jup. You just barely got it in before me.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:35 am

SkiUMahLaw wrote:
Beauner wrote:The Colts provided 100 million dollars. Zygi is quadrupling that number. The Vikings stadium plan calls for 975 million. So the state and whatever else would pay 550 million (approximately, assuming Zygi's number is still 423 million). Indiana is paying 620 million (the stadium, when originally built, cost 720).
But I guess you didn't want that information brought to light.

For those who say that LA is not a realistic option for 3-4 years: LA still has the Rose Bowl, which is ready to host an NFL team for next year if necessary and the Coliseum would probably be right along side it.
In fact, the Rose Bowl has already started preliminary studies about the viability of hosting an NFL team that the league requires before a stadium is OK'd for hosting a team.

The state is screwing with the Vikings hard. The Vikings had their ideal stadium plan in Arden Hills, had a damn-near perfect deal and design, and the state basically said "We aren't even going to listen to your plan if 'MINNEAPOLIS' isn't in the first 3 words." So the Vikings leadership said "Ok, what are the plans for the Minneapolis locations." They didn't really like any of them, but it appeared like the city of Minneapolis was serious, and the state was too. Then they threw together a piss-poor plan and it got laughed off the floor. What do people expect Vikings leadership to do? They've bent over backwards to try to keep the team in Minnesota and get a deal done, already making several concessions. The legislators and our leaders keep ing them like the Gophers did to the Whioux this season.

Let's not forget that Indy has two pro teams: the Colts and the Pacers. The Twin Cities has four. That means all teams have to share the same pot. It's a lot easier to do when you're splitting it two ways than four.

The Rose Bowl is not a long-term solution for the NFL. Why? Suites, and lack thereof. Unless the City of Pasadena is willing to really ramp up the stadium to those standards, there is no way that the Rose Bowl is anything but a short-term solution. Same thing with the Coliseum in LA. No team will move to LA without a new stadium being approved with shovels in the ground. But with that in mind, we also have two stadiums here that the Vikes could use temporarily-- neither, of course, the Vikings particularly like whatsoever.

Don't forget that the Vikes really pi$$ed a lot of legislators off-- particularly the Anoka County group-- when they pulled out of the Anoka County project almost 10 years ago. Further, Ramsey County wasn't a done deal-- why would St. Paul sign on to essentially fund the stadium in the suburbs? Considering the property tax base in St. Paul is already stretched (thanks to the state government-- a tax-exempt entity-- occupying prime spots throughout the city!), and I think you underestimate the opposition that Arden Hills would have brought up. Minneapolis was truly the only viable spot politically, and the Vikes truly refused to understand that until only recently.

I think everyone agrees that the legislature has to get its act together. But if that happens overnight, it usually results in a big failure that everyone is unhappy with. I would rather see them take their time and do it right. But that takes leadership, and I am just not seeing any legislators with power on either side of the aisle (Kreisel is the big exception, but he has no authority within his party and is a lame duck) willing to stick their necks out and make it happen. For this to get done, you have to get the majority leader and speakers on board to at least make it a worthwhile issue, and they have simply expressed little interest in doing so-- and risk, potentially, giving the governor a {gasp} political victory. Again, that's politics, and the Vikes simply have not played the game well at all.

And TCF was definitely deserved for the U. If the U ever threatens to pick up and move to Los Angeles or Tampa, please call me. Considering TCF was the first athletic building built by the state for a revenue sport at the U since the, oh, 1930s, it was due. (Mariucci was built without state funds!)

Agree with you on leadership and the lack of it but will leave it at that.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:37 am

Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

JUp there is that Jefferson and Mankato education showing its ugly side again! :wink:

by **dxmnkd316** » Thu 4/19/12 12:38 am

Hobey Baker wrote:
Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

YOU'RE not helping YOUR cause...

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:40 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

YOU'RE not helping YOUR cause...

Its late!

DXM and you're

by **Tee09** » Thu 4/19/12 12:41 am

Hobey Baker wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:whatever way you look at the stadium situation, the Gophers in no way deserved a stadium before the Vikings!

The way I look at it is this: I went to the U and love the Gophers. I never have and never will have any use for the Vikings or their fans. The Vikings provided an avenue for my University to destroy the tradition that every other Big Ten school's students and alumni can share together. It will take another 50 years to make up the time we've lost. The lack of loyalty this encouraged also makes it so a school with 50,000 students that is surrounded by 2 million people can't fill up a very nice, but small, replacement stadium because we have "too many sports options," with the Vikings being the primary distraction. They can't move soon enough.

So you can see why I don't share your opinion on the Vikings stadium.

Simply ridiculous. The Vikings ruined gopher football??? I have heard it all now.

It's more than football. It's the whole experience that's lacking, and it started with the move to the dome. Thanks, Vikings.

Does the U tear down their on-campus stadium without the Metrodome? No.
Would there be a legitimate "too many options" excuse for the crappy fans we have in Minnesota if the Vikings were gone? No.
Did Cris Carter ever go a play without whining for a pass interference flag? NO.

by **kmd** » Thu 4/19/12 12:42 am

Hobey Baker wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

YOU'RE not helping YOUR cause...

It's late!

Fixed.

by **dxmnkd316** » Thu 4/19/12 12:43 am

Hobey Baker wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

YOU'RE not helping YOUR cause...

Its late!

DXM and you're

Lesson: Never get into an argument with a complete smartass.

by **Tee09** » Thu 4/19/12 12:46 am

dxmnkd316 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Jupiter wrote:The last Rose Bowl year was the year the Vikings arrived.... Coincidence? I think not!

(Just stirring the pot a bit more)

Yeah it is. Other Big 10 teams started recruiting black athletes. Minnesota was one of the first if not the first to knock down the racial wall but you and DMX keep thinking that your right!!

YOU'RE not helping YOUR cause...

Its late!

DXM and you're

Lesson: Never get into an argument with a complete smartass.

Better a smartass than a dumbass. I had one of those conversations today with the latter where I just decided it wasn't worth the effort anymore.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 12:48 am

Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:whatever way you look at the stadium situation, the Gophers in no way deserved a stadium before the Vikings!

The way I look at it is this: I went to the U and love the Gophers. I never have and never will have any use for the Vikings or their fans. The Vikings provided an avenue for my University to destroy the tradition that every other Big Ten school's students and alumni can share together. It will take another 50 years to make up the time we've lost. The lack of loyalty this encouraged also makes it so a school with 50,000 students that is surrounded by 2 million people can't fill up a very nice, but small, replacement stadium because we have "too many sports options," with the Vikings being the primary distraction. They can't move soon enough.

So you can see why I don't share your opinion on the Vikings stadium.

Simply ridiculous. The Vikings ruined gopher football??? I have heard it all now.

It's more than football. It's the whole experience that's lacking, and it started with the move to the dome. Thanks, Vikings.

Does the U tear down their on-campus stadium without the Metrodome? No.
Would there be a legitimate "too many options" excuse for the crappy fans we have in Minnesota if the Vikings were gone? No.
Did Cris Carter ever go a play without whining for a pass interference flag? NO.

Please stop! All paper thin arguments!

Did the dome rock when Holtz was coach (Foggie and Thompson)? Yes!
If the Gophers played good football and won on a consistant basis would the crowds be better? Yes!
If the Gophers had a chance to go to the rose bowl would the dome have sold out? Yes!
Did the dome sell alcohol? Yes! Something you couldn't get until maybe this year at TCF. Another complete screw up by our legislature!!!!

I feel like I am dealing with a lot more dumb ass than smart ass right now! :lol:

by **Tee09** » Thu 4/19/12 12:53 am

Hobey Baker wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:
Tee09 wrote:
Hobey Baker wrote:whatever way you look at the stadium situation, the Gophers in no way deserved a stadium before the Vikings!

The way I look at it is this: I went to the U and love the Gophers. I never have and never will have any use for the Vikings or their fans. The Vikings provided an avenue for my University to destroy the tradition that every other Big Ten school's students and alumni can share together. It will take another 50 years to make up the time we've lost. The lack of loyalty this encouraged also makes it so a school with 50,000 students that is surrounded by 2 million people can't fill up a very nice, but small, replacement stadium because we have "too many sports options," with the Vikings being the primary distraction. They can't move soon enough.

So you can see why I don't share your opinion on the Vikings stadium.

Simply ridiculous. The Vikings ruined gopher football??? I have heard it all now.

It's more than football. It's the whole experience that's lacking, and it started with the move to the dome. Thanks, Vikings.

Does the U tear down their on-campus stadium without the Metrodome? No.
Would there be a legitimate "too many options" excuse for the crappy fans we have in Minnesota if the Vikings were gone? No.
Did Cris Carter ever go a play without whining for a pass interference flag? NO.

Please stop! All paper thin arguments!

Did the dome rock when Holtz was coach (Foggie and Thompson)? Yes!
If the Gophers played good football and won on a consistant basis would the crowds be better? Yes!
If the Gophers had a chance to go to the rose bowl would the dome have sold out? Yes!
Did the dome sell alcohol? Yes! Something you couldn't get until maybe this year.

I feel like I am dealing with a lot more dumb ass than smart ass right now!

Could you tailgate at your house and walk across campus to the Dome?
Could your old man come back to the U and show you where he sat at the Dome?
Are the Gophers school colors bright blue and Teflon grey?
Can you hear a marching band inside the dome without microphones?

by **Bash Brother** » Thu 4/19/12 12:57 am

Consistent.

(Just Doing Dx's part)

by **Tee09** » Thu 4/19/12 12:58 am

The Mole wrote:Consistent.

(Just Doing Dx's part)

I forgot an apostrophe on Gophers'. I denounce myself.

by **Bash Brother** » Thu 4/19/12 1:03 am

Dx appreciates it.

by **dxmnkd316** » Thu 4/19/12 1:04 am

Indeed

by **Beauner** » Thu 4/19/12 5:24 am

Headline in the pioneer press this morning about a message from Gooddell to Gov. Dayton. I didn't read it (saw it in line at gas station) but it looked like it was something along the lines of "Get your s**t straight or there will be severe consequences."

by **monty** » Thu 4/19/12 8:27 am

This is all politics, the DFL wants to take back control of the house and senate and approving a stadium is not going to help them this fall. I bet that after the election and before Thanksgiving that there is a special session approving a Vikings stadium.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 8:33 am

NFL is going to lead the charge in calling out our govt for its lack of a solution and funding mechanism for the stadium.

by **Zwak** » Thu 4/19/12 8:35 am

monty wrote:This is all politics, the DFL wants to take back control of the house and senate and approving a stadium is not going to help them this fall. I bet that after the election and before Thanksgiving that there is a special session approving a Vikings stadium.

I don't want this to turn into a big political debate, but I totally agree with you. Neither party wants the other party to look good.

by **gopher6** » Thu 4/19/12 8:35 am

monty wrote:This is all politics, the DFL wants to take back control of the house and senate and approving a stadium is not going to help them this fall. I bet that after the election and before Thanksgiving that there is a special session approving a Vikings stadium.

this state is so xxxxed up, we lost the lakers, we lost the Nstars, now could lose the Queens due to our pathetic state goverment :chainsaw:

by **Five-HoleFrenzy** » Thu 4/19/12 8:51 am

gopher6 wrote:
monty wrote:This is all politics, the DFL wants to take back control of the house and senate and approving a stadium is not going to help them this fall. I bet that after the election and before Thanksgiving that there is a special session approving a Vikings stadium.

this state is so xxxxed up, we lost the lakers, we lost the Nstars, now could lose the Queens due to our pathetic state goverment

You might as well embrace Loserville. It's easier on the blood pressure.

by **rowshkex** » Thu 4/19/12 9:24 am

Hobey Baker wrote:NFL is going to lead the charge in calling out our govt for its lack of a solution and funding mechanism for the stadium. in order to make as much money as possible.

FYP.

by **sunbone** » Thu 4/19/12 9:56 am

Reading this thread reminds me of watching the legislature and why they can’t get this thing done. People unwilling to deal with reality, complete falsehoods passing for facts, people getting distracted from the real issue like a kid with ADD on a crack bender, a complete lack of foresight, a dose of over the top demagoguery, coupled with a complete lack of leadership. (Sorry Jup).

by **Hammy** » Thu 4/19/12 9:58 am

Politics suck. It is really sad when individuals are more concerned about their own re-election than anything else. It's not about serving the greater good. It's about doing what is palatable to getting re-elected.

Most politicians are scum in my mind. Some try their best but get stymied by the larger group that would rather screw the other side over than to allow something positive to occur.

Some of these people just don't have a grasp of reality that there are certain enterprises in this world that are more important than others when it comes to community identity. It is the market expectation that you show a willingness to pony up some money to maintain that identity. These teams bring in good tax money and create jobs. I don't think the Vikes have been asking for anything outrageous.

by **Handyman** » Thu 4/19/12 10:06 am

I like how dx totally sidestepped all the info about Lucas Oil after he got pimpslapped with how it got paid for

And the Gophers deserved a stadium first...long before the Pohlads and (insert Vikings owner here). They are the state university, the flagship Big Ten program here. They were not picking up and leaving, and since the place is run on our tax dollars anyways it made sense. Plus the Dome sucked. (the Dome sucks period)

Ya know for as idiotic as Common Man is he is right about one thing, with all of the Fortune 500 companies in the area you would think raising the $150 Million Minneapolis is being stupid about (after they forced their way into the deal) would be easy as hell. Target, General Mills, 3M, Medtronic please pick up the white courtesy phone!

by **Beauner** » Thu 4/19/12 11:08 am

Hammy wrote:Politics suck. It is really sad when individuals are more concerned about their own re-election than anything else. It's not about serving the greater good. It's about doing what is palatable to getting re-elected.

Most politicians are scum in my mind. Some try their best but get stymied by the larger group that would rather screw the other side over than to allow something positive to occur.

Some of these people just don't have a grasp of reality that there are certain enterprises in this world that are more important than others when it comes to community identity. It is the market expectation that you show a willingness to pony up some money to maintain that identity. These teams bring in good tax money and create jobs. I don't think the Vikes have been asking for anything outrageous.

Winner.
That's why I'm disappointed John Kriesel is not running again (not that he would be able to change this crap, but it's 1 less good man in politics so the number is back down to 0). I don't really know what political affiliation he has, but I do know he's gotten himself in plenty of hot water for not going along the party lines and actually being a real human being and fighting for what is right, not what his party says to do.

by **Bladepuller** » Thu 4/19/12 11:24 am

Kreisel is from the GOP & I totally agree that he is going to be missed in the process.
The DFL is fractured on this as is the GOP. This thing could just explode at the polls this fall.
Since my state sen. lost the endorsement of his party because of redistricting with another senator of the same party & his office is full of Packer memorabilia he is totally irrelevant & how he would react in a lame duck special session could be veeeeeeeery interesting. :shock:

My rep. is likely unopposed & a huge racino guy. :ahhh:

Nothing like having emotional issues to make an election interesting, though. :chainsaw:

by **kmd** » Thu 4/19/12 1:00 pm

Handyman wrote:I like how dx totally sidestepped all the info about Lucas Oil after he got pimpslapped with how it got paid for

He had already mentioned that Indianapolis only has 2 pro teams and no major state universities, which means it's easier for them to dump more money into a given team.

Also, what they did with Lucas Oil Stadium was far more than just build a place to play football. The stadium is also an addition to their convention center ("The stadium offers 183,000 sq ft (17,000 m2) of exhibition space, 13,000 sq ft (1,200 m2) of meeting rooms, and 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) of pre-event space."), and the old stadium was demolished and turned into a two-story addition to the convention center.

by **Beauner** » Thu 4/19/12 1:42 pm

kmd wrote:
Handyman wrote:I like how dx totally sidestepped all the info about Lucas Oil after he got pimpslapped with how it got paid for

He had already mentioned that Indianapolis only has 2 pro teams and no major state universities, which means it's easier for them to dump more money into a given team.

Also, what they did with Lucas Oil Stadium was far more than just build a place to play football. The stadium is also an addition to their convention center ("The stadium offers 183,000 sq ft (17,000 m2) of exhibition space, 13,000 sq ft (1,200 m2) of meeting rooms, and 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) of pre-event space."), and the old stadium was demolished and turned into a two-story addition to the convention center.

That wasn't DX technically. That was SUML. :wink:

The Dome was used for hundreds of different things as well (IIRC, it was used something like 330 days out of 365 days a year). What makes people so sure that a new Vikings stadium couldn't or wouldn't do the same type of things? Target Field is used for different events all the time. So is the X (IIRC). Hasn't Zygi already said that they would pay for full operating costs for a Viking stadium for any event?

by **rowshkex** » Thu 4/19/12 2:19 pm

Beauner wrote:
kmd wrote:
Handyman wrote:I like how dx totally sidestepped all the info about Lucas Oil after he got pimpslapped with how it got paid for

He had already mentioned that Indianapolis only has 2 pro teams and no major state universities, which means it's easier for them to dump more money into a given team.

Also, what they did with Lucas Oil Stadium was far more than just build a place to play football. The stadium is also an addition to their convention center ("The stadium offers 183,000 sq ft (17,000 m2) of exhibition space, 13,000 sq ft (1,200 m2) of meeting rooms, and 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) of pre-event space."), and the old stadium was demolished and turned into a two-story addition to the convention center.

That wasn't DX technically. That was SUML.
The Dome was used for hundreds of different things as well (IIRC, it was used something like 330 days out of 365 days a year). What makes people so sure that a new Vikings stadium couldn't or wouldn't do the same type of things? Target Field is used for different events all the time. So is the X (IIRC). Hasn't Zygi already said that they would pay for full operating costs for a Viking stadium for any event?

Did he give up his plea for an open-air stadium?

by **ScoobyDoo** » Thu 4/19/12 3:12 pm

Given the number of events the Dome hosted outside of The Twins, Vikings, and Gopher Football in its heyday its pretty obvious the Twin Cities needs a facility like it.

As long as the Vikings open it up to other events I don't have a problem with them getting tax money that they certainly could collect elsewhere if they just move.

by **sec 16 row16 seat 16 17** » Thu 4/19/12 3:23 pm

what a embaressment the commisioner of the NFL has to get involved.

by **Hobey Baker** » Thu 4/19/12 3:36 pm

Danny B with a great interview with the NFL Executive VP Eric Grubman. Worth a listen.

by **kmd** » Thu 4/19/12 4:16 pm

I've never seen a real citation for the dome being used 330 days of the year. How many of those days are them letting people use the concourse as a roller skating track? How many days are off-season baseball training (which the new football only stadium couldn't accommodate)? I don't necessarily doubt it was used frequently, just not for things that merit a downtown, one billion dollar facility.

by **Beauner** » Fri 4/20/12 5:08 am

rowshkex wrote:
Beauner wrote:
kmd wrote:
Handyman wrote:I like how dx totally sidestepped all the info about Lucas Oil after he got pimpslapped with how it got paid for

He had already mentioned that Indianapolis only has 2 pro teams and no major state universities, which means it's easier for them to dump more money into a given team.

Also, what they did with Lucas Oil Stadium was far more than just build a place to play football. The stadium is also an addition to their convention center ("The stadium offers 183,000 sq ft (17,000 m2) of exhibition space, 13,000 sq ft (1,200 m2) of meeting rooms, and 15,000 square feet (1,400 m2) of pre-event space."), and the old stadium was demolished and turned into a two-story addition to the convention center.

That wasn't DX technically. That was SUML.
The Dome was used for hundreds of different things as well (IIRC, it was used something like 330 days out of 365 days a year). What makes people so sure that a new Vikings stadium couldn't or wouldn't do the same type of things? Target Field is used for different events all the time. So is the X (IIRC). Hasn't Zygi already said that they would pay for full operating costs for a Viking stadium for any event?

Did he give up his plea for an open-air stadium?

Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

by **gopher wes** » Fri 4/20/12 9:03 am

Beauner, you are wrong. If the queens got a new stadium, it would only be used for 8 Vikings homes games each year. That's it. Nothing else. :wink:

by **team22tank** » Fri 4/20/12 9:19 am

Now that Target Field and TCF Bank Stadium have been built and open for a couple years does anyone know of anyone who has been complaining about Target Field or TCF Bank and how they were/are funded through tax payer dollars? I for myself haven't heard a peep, whether it is the media, politicians, other fans at the games, ect., not a peep.

by **SkiUMahLaw** » Fri 4/20/12 9:38 am

Beauner wrote:
Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Personally, I've never understood the justification for a retractable roof for an NFL stadium. If the weather falls below 40 or there is any chance of rain, I think there are some silly NFL rules that mandate the roof closed, meaning that the roof would be open at most three times per year for the Vikings. Further, keeping it open with any chance of rain requires installation of drainage in the facility itself. Is it worth the added cost? It makes more sense for baseball, as 81 games during summer allow for a different calculation, but the numbers for such an addition seem to be an added feature that won't be used much. Google the outrage as to how rare the Lucas Oil roof is open, and remember that stadium is in Indiana, compared to the weathermania we have here.

But hosting a Super Bowl and NCAA Final Four are exactly why we should build a facility. If we want to be considered a big-time market, we have to keep up with the Jones'. But that does not mean we have to copy what Jerry Jones did.

by **Handyman** » Fri 4/20/12 10:28 am

Fine, make Lucas Oil then...make sure to give Zygi the same price point and cost though too ok? I mean he should be forced to keep up with the joneses but not have to pay out the nose like Jerry Jones right? Hell the NFL money will cover his cost so lets do it! That seems fair right?

I honestly think the Blue Earth tribe is being screwed...their proposal is the best if you ask me. It had no chance of passing but man a very fun solution to a couple different problems.

by **oldpirate33** » Fri 4/20/12 10:33 am

SkiUMahLaw wrote:
Beauner wrote:
Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Personally, I've never understood the justification for a retractable roof for an NFL stadium. If the weather falls below 40 or there is any chance of rain, I think there are some silly NFL rules that mandate the roof closed, meaning that the roof would be open at most three times per year for the Vikings. Further, keeping it open with any chance of rain requires installation of drainage in the facility itself. Is it worth the added cost? It makes more sense for baseball, as 81 games during summer allow for a different calculation, but the numbers for such an addition seem to be an added feature that won't be used much. Google the outrage as to how rare the Lucas Oil roof is open, and remember that stadium is in Indiana, compared to the weathermania we have here.

But hosting a Super Bowl and NCAA Final Four are exactly why we should build a facility. If we want to be considered a big-time market, we have to keep up with the Jones'. But that does not mean we have to copy what Jerry Jones did.

unless it has changed recently, the only NFL rule about the roof is that a decision needs to be made 90 minutes before the game and if the roof is closed during the game because of weather it has to stay closed. Otherwise it is up to the team to set their own guidelines for when to have the roof open or closed.

by **Handyman** » Fri 4/20/12 10:34 am

Yeah SUML might have it confused with baseballs rules because that makes zero sense.

by **Beauner** » Fri 4/20/12 11:07 am

oldpirate33 wrote:
SkiUMahLaw wrote:Personally, I've never understood the justification for a retractable roof for an NFL stadium. If the weather falls below 40 or there is any chance of rain, I think there are some silly NFL rules that mandate the roof closed, meaning that the roof would be open at most three times per year for the Vikings. Further, keeping it open with any chance of rain requires installation of drainage in the facility itself. Is it worth the added cost? It makes more sense for baseball, as 81 games during summer allow for a different calculation, but the numbers for such an addition seem to be an added feature that won't be used much. Google the outrage as to how rare the Lucas Oil roof is open, and remember that stadium is in Indiana, compared to the weathermania we have here.

unless it has changed recently, the only NFL rule about the roof is that a decision needs to be made 90 minutes before the game and if the roof is closed during the game because of weather it has to stay closed. Otherwise it is up to the team to set their own guidelines for when to have the roof open or closed.

This is the only information I could find about NFL rules regarding opening the roof
NFL Open vs. Closed Roof

SUML is right about the additional price for the drainage for the facility and whether it is worth it or not.
I could see the Vikings brass, if they use a retractable roof, saying they'd keep the roof open unless it starts to rain or snow. If it's raining/snowing they could close it to avoid having to worry about draining, but if it's just cold they could leave it open to have that "open-air" feel.

by **sunbone** » Fri 4/20/12 12:13 pm

After being forced to listen to Paul Allen's show for about 15 minutes this morning I have changed my mind and am now 100% anti-stadium.

by **Handyman** » Fri 4/20/12 1:50 pm

sunbone wrote:After being forced to listen to Paul Allen's show for about 15 minutes this morning I have changed my mind and am now 100% anti-stadium.

Yeah he will do that

by **sunbone** » Fri 4/20/12 2:00 pm

Handyman wrote:
sunbone wrote:After being forced to listen to Paul Allen's show for about 15 minutes this morning I have changed my mind and am now 100% anti-stadium.

Yeah he will do that

I don't know how he breathes with his nose so far into Zygi's crack. Sid could take shill lessons from PA.

by **Handyman** » Fri 4/20/12 2:06 pm

Well he has a rooting interest in it seeing as he works for the station that broadcasts them and is their radio guy

But yeah I would avoid him like the plague these days...

by **sunbone** » Fri 4/20/12 2:29 pm

Handyman wrote:Well he has a rooting interest in it seeing as he works for the station that broadcasts them and is their radio guy

But yeah I would avoid him like the plague these days...

I understand that but he was beyond over the top. Making the Wilfs out to be the best owners in the history of sports. He said something about the Vikings only won one playoff game under Red, which is not true. And he made it sound like the Wilfs are going broke running the team. Come on. I'm for a stadium but realize dealing with these situations is like dancing with the Devil.

by **sec 16 row16 seat 16 17** » Fri 4/20/12 2:33 pm

listening to spielman with mr smug pa everything is a joke to spielman.

by **kmd** » Fri 4/20/12 4:55 pm

Beauner wrote:Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Those are estimates for the economic impact to local businesses based on the average visitor to the Super Bowl spending $1000. The Lucas Oil Stadium operating entity itself actually lost money by hosting (they spent something like $8 million to run it, only got $7 million back in revenue from ticket sales and the like). You could argue that it's an indirect local stimulus, or that the government will be getting a percentage of that money back through taxes, but it's by no means as simple as the state getting an immediate return for their investment.

by **h8red** » Fri 4/20/12 5:24 pm

kmd wrote:
Beauner wrote:Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Those are estimates for the economic impact to local businesses based on the average visitor to the Super Bowl spending $1000. The Lucas Oil Stadium operating entity itself actually lost money by hosting (they spent something like $8 million to run it, only got $7 million back in revenue from ticket sales and the like). You could argue that it's an indirect local stimulus, or that the government will be getting a percentage of that money back through taxes, but it's by no means as simple as the state getting an immediate return for their investment.

Both sides will spin their numbers to make their side look better. I don't trust either side. The politicians are lazy SOBs, Ziggy's group at least works to accomplish something but you can't trust him cuz you know he only cares about his business ventures. Maybe the Packers are set up the right way with public ownership- not knowing all of those details.

by **Beauner** » Fri 4/20/12 5:30 pm

kmd wrote:
Beauner wrote:Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Those are estimates for the economic impact to local businesses based on the average visitor to the Super Bowl spending $1000. The Lucas Oil Stadium operating entity itself actually lost money by hosting (they spent something like $8 million to run it, only got $7 million back in revenue from ticket sales and the like). You could argue that it's an indirect local stimulus, or that the government will be getting a percentage of that money back through taxes, but it's by no means as simple as the state getting an immediate return for their investment.

IIRC, the Wilfs have said that they would be paying for the operating expenses for as long as they own the team. Which I would imagine includes operating expenses for a Super Bowl.

by **kmd** » Fri 4/20/12 8:44 pm

Beauner wrote:
kmd wrote:
Beauner wrote:Every design/sketch I've seen of stadium plans in the last 9-15 months that was being considered had a roof or retractable roof iirc. I know the one on the metronome site did.
A new stadium gives us a good chance at hosting a Super Bowl. There have been reports that the state of Indiana/the city of Indianapolis made between 250 and 350 million dollars in added revenue from hosting a super bowl. If that is true that could damn near pay for Minnesota's share.

Those are estimates for the economic impact to local businesses based on the average visitor to the Super Bowl spending $1000. The Lucas Oil Stadium operating entity itself actually lost money by hosting (they spent something like $8 million to run it, only got $7 million back in revenue from ticket sales and the like). You could argue that it's an indirect local stimulus, or that the government will be getting a percentage of that money back through taxes, but it's by no means as simple as the state getting an immediate return for their investment.

IIRC, the Wilfs have said that they would be paying for the operating expenses for as long as they own the team. Which I would imagine includes operating expenses for a Super Bowl.

I'd presume that if they're paying the operating expenses for the event, they'd also take the gate. But even if you want to presume the Wilfs would pay all operating expenses with the government getting $10 million from the gate, and you assume that the local impact is a generous $500 million (doesn't take into account the fact that Super Bowl patrons are displacing some number of people who would otherwise be patronizing the area that weekend) with the government eventually getting 20% in taxes, that doesn't even get you a quarter of the way to the amount of money local government is putting into the place.

by **Orion** » Fri 4/20/12 9:16 pm

team22tank wrote:Now that Target Field and TCF Bank Stadium have been built and open for a couple years does anyone know of anyone who has been complaining about Target Field or TCF Bank and how they were/are funded through tax payer dollars? I for myself haven't heard a peep, whether it is the media, politicians, other fans at the games, ect., not a peep.

I'll go on record saying I'm still pissed about Target field. If they would have had a referendum I would have voted for it. The low down dirty underhanded snake in the grass mule headed way they did it should be called out for the bag of monkey s**t it is! hallelujah holy s**t! Where's the Tylenol?

by **rowshkex** » Sat 4/21/12 1:07 am

Orion wrote:
team22tank wrote:Now that Target Field and TCF Bank Stadium have been built and open for a couple years does anyone know of anyone who has been complaining about Target Field or TCF Bank and how they were/are funded through tax payer dollars? I for myself haven't heard a peep, whether it is the media, politicians, other fans at the games, ect., not a peep.

I'll go on record saying I'm still pissed about Target field. If they would have had a referendum I would have voted for it. The low down dirty underhanded snake in the grass mule headed way they did it should be called out for the bag of monkey s**t it is! hallelujah holy s**t! Where's the Tylenol?

It took me two reads, but at that point I was also curious where the Tylenol was... :wink:

In all seriousness, is it the 2013 draft yet?

by **gator** » Sat 4/21/12 6:53 am

This Vikings' Stadium issue is starting to go down the same road as UND's mascot issue. Get together, be adults, figure something out that's best for the Vikings staying and Mr. & Mrs. Tax payer of the state of Minnesota.

by **The Rube** » Sat 4/21/12 12:45 pm

Well, the bill is moving forward. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you.

by **dxmnkd316** » Sat 4/21/12 4:29 pm

It is? Because that's not how I read the article from the Strib at ALL.

by **gopherguy13** » Sat 4/21/12 4:35 pm

dxmnkd316 wrote:It is? Because that's not how I read the article from the Strib at ALL.

From KARE 11's website:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - There was renewed optimism at the Capitol Friday night after a day of high drama. It culminated with the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections allowing the Minneapolis Vikings bill to move forward with a narrow 8 to 6 vote.

by **dxmnkd316** » Sat 4/21/12 4:37 pm

gopherguy13 wrote:
dxmnkd316 wrote:It is? Because that's not how I read the article from the Strib at ALL.

From KARE 11's website:

ST. PAUL, Minn. - There was renewed optimism at the Capitol Friday night after a day of high drama. It culminated with the Senate Committee on Local Government and Elections allowing the Minneapolis Vikings bill to move forward with a narrow 8 to 6 vote.

Strib wrote:Revived Friday by legislative leaders after personal lobbying by NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, a proposal for a new Minnesota Vikings stadium could well have an outside shot at overall approval.

by **gopherguy13** » Sat 4/21/12 4:46 pm

There seem to be conflicting reports out there... :confused2:

by **dxmnkd316** » Sat 4/21/12 4:48 pm

I'm shocked! SHocked I tell you.

by **gopherguy13** » Sat 4/21/12 4:52 pm

dxmnkd316 wrote:I'm shocked! SHocked I tell you.

by **monty** » Mon 4/23/12 8:25 am

I watched Joe Schmidt's sports show last night and he had Shawn Zoebel on, who was correctly picked the Vikings last 5 first round draft picks, and he is predicting the Vikings will take Blackman with the 3rd pick. He also hedged his bet by saying they are looking to trade out of it.

by **psych** » Mon 4/23/12 8:52 am

monty wrote:I watched Joe Schmidt's sports show last night and he had Shawn Zoebel on, who was correctly picked the Vikings last 5 first round draft picks, and he is predicting the Vikings will take Blackman with the 3rd pick. He also hedged his bet by saying they are looking to trade out of it.

I hope Blackmon likes (and excels at) running 3-yard-and-out routes, because that is all the time Ponder will have to throw to him.

by **Five-HoleFrenzy** » Mon 4/23/12 9:02 am

In a year when being in either the first or second slot would have been ideal, the Vikings end up third. As much of a no brainer as Luck and Griffith are at 1 & 2 Kalil SHOULD be a no brainer at 3 but I get the feeling that the Vikings will screw this up as well. And as far as trading out of the third pick, does anyone have confidence that this organization can excute that in a manner that won't make you wonder WTF just happened?

by **ScoobyDoo** » Mon 4/23/12 9:07 am

Five-HoleFrenzy wrote:In a year when being in either the first or second slot would have been ideal, the Vikings end up third. As much of a no brainer as Luck and Griffith are at 1 & 2 Kalil SHOULD be a no brainer at 3 but I get the feeling that the Vikings will screw this up as well. And as far as trading out of the third pick, does anyone have confidence that this organization can excute that in a manner that won't make you wonder WTF just happened?

Maybe the clock will run out again and they'll pick 4th instead of 3rd. Decent strategy if they don't want to pay 3rd pick money and still want Kalil.

by **Lars Sauve** » Mon 4/23/12 9:20 am

I remember back when Zoebel was the laughingstock of the IGN boards. He took himself really seriously as an expert (well before any local media quoted him on anything) and people gave him a lot of crap.

Another poster said that he knew an NFL scout and offered to have the guy email Zoebel. This "scout" fed Zoebel a bunch of crap, all of which he proceeded to post on his draft website. The most ridiculous was the inside scoop that Ted Thompson (Packers GM) had missed an important workout because he had bad gas. Eventually the poster revealed that he was the scout, Zoebel had to take down all the "news" from his website, and people thought he was an even bigger joke than before.

Obviously, he's done well establishing himself as a source with some of the media around here, but I can't hear his name without laughing.

by **Handyman** » Mon 4/23/12 11:09 am

monty wrote:I watched Joe Schmidt's sports show last night and he had Shawn Zoebel on, who was correctly picked the Vikings last 5 first round draft picks, and he is predicting the Vikings will take Blackman with the 3rd pick. He also hedged his bet by saying they are looking to trade out of it.

The only way they draft Blackmon is if they get a second first round pick so they can take a tackle then. Zoebel is off his gord. My guess is someone in the organization let it "slip" so the info could get out there and it could help the trade stock.

Then again it is the Vikes...

by **monty** » Mon 4/23/12 12:16 pm

Attached is Sid article where Sid quotes Spielman saying that Claiborne and Blackmon are on the same level as Khalil and the Vikings will draft one of the 3.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/148458675.html

Spielman is going to :censored:

this up big time.

by **Snowcool08** » Mon 4/23/12 1:30 pm

I wouldn't be too upset taking Claiborne at #3 instead of Kalil. We have to face Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler and Matthew Stafford 6 times a year with a non-existent secondary. Adding a talent like Claiborne could only help.

by **gopherguy13** » Mon 4/23/12 1:50 pm

Snowcool08 wrote:I wouldn't be too upset taking Claiborne at #3 instead of Kalil. We have to face Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler and Matthew Stafford 6 times a year with a non-existent secondary. Adding a talent like Claiborne could only help.

I agree with this. I'd be fine with Claiborne or Kalil.

Prefer Kalil, but I wouldn't throw a fit if we got MC.

by **sunbone** » Mon 4/23/12 1:54 pm

I prefer Kalil as well. But one thing about Claiborne, with his score on the Wonderlic we know he would not have a problem fitting in. Hell, he may have a future in the front office after his playing days are over.

Who is online